PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-10-20, 22:49:28
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Author Topic: Ricks best video's  (Read 11443 times)
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Hi Poynt99,
I have had many kits over the years. There are several of them mentioned here. Let me make a few clarifying comments:

1. All of my kits have been asked for by customers, usually for several years before I get around to doing one. So I have not ever set out to make a product that has not been begged for. I sell what people ask for. I never make some product and then ask for people to buy it. I provide a service. I'm not a salesman, I don't do marketing. This responds to your last question.

2. Yes I have built my kits. For some years they were sent as a kit to assemble but now half the people want them assembled, so we assemble them. I have personally assembled over a thousand motor energizers that I measure to be OU.

3. One kit would be a brushless fan motor. We can measure the input and CFMs of the fan. Then we can replace the diode, or entire circuit, and run the fan with the same CFMs and input, but with additional outputs. Outputs beyond the normal motor action and it's losses are additional body loops that you guys are all perfectly well aware of. Depending on what kind of load we want to run there, as every kind of load can be, we will have very few parts to make that happen.

4. Testing is done as would be expected with appropriate meters over time. Some tests were done over years. I do not publish tests so I doubt that you will be interested therefore. Testing is done in the real world and not over the internet or video. Therefore people prove to themselves in person what can be done. I have personal friends that are engineers at the top levels of industry that have used this technology. Any companies that I work with keep their testing internal and private. I do not seek validation by third parties, as I don't need it.

5. On this forum there is conflicting information about what OU is. The pdf does not say anything about self-looping, but someone else said that was a requirement for some reason. While that can be done OU does not depend upon self-looping or even electrical output.

6. There are basic levels of this technology, which is for the general public, and there are advanced levels that have very high outputs and are not for the general public. The basic levels range from anything that is above unity to self-running and several times the input.

7. I am not donating my kits to any forums, nor am I placing my instruction documents online. While I have made a lot of information available over the years, and made hundreds of free videos, I am now making a website that will put all the opensource material on free energy in one place. What I am willing to share will be there.

If you are interested in learning how to experience OU then I hope my work can help you out. I don't really know exactly what you guys are doing here but I am puzzled as to why after all this time you have nothing yet. Maybe you can explain that to me as I believe you are the person who is the big name here???

Hi Rick.
Have you built your kit, or a reasonable facsimile of your kit and produced/measured OU with it?
If the answer is yes, could you briefly describe the kit setup and the measurement setup?
If the answer is no, may I ask; why are you selling the kits?
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
AC,
Such a kit would be problematic to sell. You open yourself up to trouble. You would have research into what it would take to have the proper legal disclaimers and avoid liability problems. The idea overlaps weapons systems and EMP technology so it is risky to get into. You have to consider what kind of effects will result from selling something like that. What is it you are trying to teach people?

Poynt99
A similar question may be why a majority of corporations and almost every politician are peddling unrealistic expectations for profit verging on complete bs?. So I take it your wondering why a person would want to sell a kit probably based on years of work to generate profit?... most likely so people can learn from the experience and to move forward.

In a world of Instagram and Youtube hero's who make millions and contribute nothing quite honestly I find this refreshing. Not to mention all the tech startup's with pie in the sky unicorns which most likely will never see the light of day not unlike bitcoin pulling in billions and your worried about Rick's kit... really?.

I was thinking about building a "kit" as well. A strange little device which coordinates the dielectric and magnetic fields in such a way that it produces a motional electric field around a circular set of coils. It is strange because the external field wipes out all electronics with a HV induced field within a few meters and penetrates a Faraday cage as if it were not even present. So in your estimation what would a kit like this be worth?.

Regards
AC
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2905
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Hi Rick.

Apologies for not being specific, nor up to speed on all your kits, but I guess I was referring to what I gather is your latest kit (a few folks here have been talking about it recently, and at OU.com)?

Based on your response I will assume that you have built this kit and that you have measured OU from the device. Incidentally, is this latest kit purely solid state, or is there some wheel, motor or generator involved?

In regards to what OU is, I'm not sure who here is confused about it, but I think I have a clear understanding of what it is. And you are correct, self-looping is not the only proof of OU; proper and accurate measurements will provide the answer as well.

At OUR, most of us here are hopeful that one day someone will discover and/or reveal a device and method for producing OU, it is just that we haven't yet seen such a device come into fruition.

A question; it is my understanding (and please correct me if my information is erroneous) that if someone has acquired and tested your kit, and concluded from their measurements the device is not producing energy at OU, that you will not accept their measurements as accurate or correct.

Is this true?
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Poynt99,
I fail to see why your comments do not apply to what I said. I believe you asked about my kits.
I have made all appropriate measurements for the Resonance Induction Coupler Kit. The problem with your insistence upon examining this kit is that I am not going to make my book available to this forum. That will not be consistent with what Brad told me is required on this forum. I am not going to make the book open. It is copyright and I do not give permission. I am not about to mention each point in the book so as to contradict that. I did not come here to promote the kit or recommend it for analysis. Someone else did and I told them not to do that. I am simply responding to questions.
I did not make the kit for people to prove OU even though it teaches on the themes or principles of free energy. I realized after many years in the free energy world that most people had no clear experience with resonance. The kit has been a real revelation to people along those lines. The first purpose of the kit was to provide the very tool that Don Smith directed people to start with, and which he first learned from at his very beginning in this research as a high school science teacher demonstrating that kit. About two years ago we ordered the kit for $280 and found only 7 pages of instructions and a few parts. This was merely to learn the ideas of wirelessly power, resonance, and crystal radio. It went over some of Faraday's principles. This was far too costly for people to learn these basics with, so we decided to do an entirely different thing. We decided to set the maximum cost at $100 and had much more to the basic idea. We did not include any of the information from that kit, and improve upon the coils and parts, and add more parts. I decided to write a fair size book of 89 pages on letter size. The book is made up of two sections. The first is for beginners and the second is merely advanced information extensive endnotes making up about 3/4 of the book. We wanted to make the book easy enough for some of my 11 year old relatives, while also giving people opportunity expand their research if they wanted to at a later date. There is a good bit of basic information in the various chapters as well as many experiments. So this is where the complexity of answering your question comes in. The book contains a lot of fundamental information about OU or free energy which the student can begin to explore with the kit. But the kit was not some kind of 1, 2, 3 step by step process to prove OU. It was rather a step by step process to understand Resonance and learn the several associated concepts, like impulse, and impedance. It is more introducing the ideas of OU AFTER these themes are learned. Initially I didn't want to address OU at all as I was just going to focus on resonance as mentioned. But half way through it I realized that I couldn't avoid the subject. Since the purpose was not to prove OU but to understand resonance, impulse, one wire transfer, and wireless in the Teslian context (as opposed to the linear and non-linear resistive mainstream context), the goal was to give tools to be able to make slight movements, and frequency, capacitive, inductive adjustments to observe subtle changes. When F6 and Brad chastised Aking for Bruno's video about my kit they failed to understand any of these things and the video they were watching. They just assumed the kit and video had to be about proving OU, when Bruno was actually just trying to consider the effects of grounding upon the circuits. This kind of hyper and immature reactions make this forum a complete failure for anyone to come here and hope to progress. You just get insulted and shot down by people just given free license to make assumptions. Grounding is also an important part of the kit in the context of Tesla's one wire systems. That is a fundamental part of Tesla's systems which most people skip when they jump from studying his AC to wireless. So I shared a lot of information about that. The kit parts have tools to learn these things, and the more parts you add to it the more outputs you can have. In most cases that will mean the input does not increase while outputs can be added. This is actually part of the mystery point to ponder while going through. I want the student to think of all the possibilities so that they may discover things than none of us have yet. Since the Maxwell equations were stripped (by H and L) of the goods that we are focused on in this and other kits, there has been very little consideration of the Teslian processes that were removed from consideration. So that was my goal as well. One obvious mystery point is that you begin to see with at least having three coils (the kit only comes with 2 but most people order a third) that you could keep adding coils without changing the input draw under some circumstances. The cover of the book, with many coils connected and wireless and grounded gives various hints and suggestions to try and learn from. The goal also of the book is to get the students to try and think for themselves. I really didn't want to be told these things before so that they could come to these conclusions on their own. Now there are several specific things that can result in observing OU with the kit. But the idea is to let the student learn how to figure that out and come to their own conclusions. I do not force those kinds of things. This is why people like it so much. They are free to explore and learn some of the most important electrical processes from a historical and wider perspective than they would get in college. The book is far from perfect and could use corrections here and there, but engineers are very satisfied with it.

Now eventually I decided to progress things more and more with my presentations, particularly at my meetings, since I had given a lot of advanced information in the book about having endless outputs or phase conjugate mirror processes, or sympathetic resonance. The object was not to make those an exercise but begin to consider the ideas. So I decided to demonstrate some of that at my meetings and talk a little about such in the videos, especially in relation to Don Smith systems. This is kind of expected of me. So last year in Lodi California I demonstrated a multiplication of the energy with many coils. I then was about to demonstrate something else, but I managed to arrange my coils just right so that I had almost perfect phasing between the transmitter and surrounding coils with the result that the input energy was almost zero ma and no matter how many ferrite rods wrapped with wire and loaded we added (all that we had there) the phase locking effect was so strong that it didn't detune as it normally would without that strong lock-in (a subject I teach on and show videos about). I didn't intend to show this, but it happened. In another different demonstration at the Midwest Expo this year in Shipshewana Indian I demonstrated the same sort of thing while all the attendees packed around our tables. I never even had time to completely set up but did at least get it down to 4ma 4V input under the same circumstances where I could keep adding ferrite coil with loads to the transmitter while it was in lock-in with other coils that were loaded as well. With both of these demonstrations I also showed meters and oscilloscopes for people to examine all the relationships. We also had other meters for frequency, EF, EMF, RF related studies. I only mention these because they were public events. I don't mention what I have done because that really doesn't matter and much of it is proprietary. I only get into the basics of this technology with the public for various reasons.

During the last meeting, since I had not realized how many coils I had in inventory, I decided to show something new as my attendees were returning again and again for more. I always show new things, and can do as many as 100 demonstrations over 22 hours in two full days. So I brought about 100 coils, and we made 10 larger coils. We only got around 75 smaller coils with capacitors and LEDs on them, but we filled up the table, as can be seen in the picture. The objective there was not to prove OU either. Most or all of the attendees already have long proven OU on their own and most of them had this kit already. But obviously no one had that many coils. My point was to show the relationships mentioned in the book. But this was the least important thing to the whole meeting and I put off it till the end because there was more important things to focus on. So we did only a few of the things. But I wanted to show how many coils could be affected on just one level. That no matter how many I added around it the input would only go down. Now in a few arrangement it would draw more input like Itsu mostly experienced. So we just moved the coils so that they would only bring the input down. We had the larger 6" coils around the center very large transmitter. Then I showed with several small and big coils that no matter where I placed them in the area around the transmitter (if you had made a globe starting from the edge of the coils) they would be powered and not affect the other coils loads or the transmitter. Ferrites with coils and loads were also added to the transmitter but I did not have time to position the coils in a more ideal way as I had previously demonstrated. But everyone was satisfied with the demonstration as they divided the input up by all the outputs and realized that the larger bulbs would not have been lit more than a flicker if this had been merely a division of the input energy. It wasn't my goal to prove that as I really didn't have time to set that up because of other more important setups that had to get done. So while this was impressive, what is more important was learning the special relationships as mentioned. This I presented on OU the other night when I extensively quoted from T. W. Barrett  on the subject as a leading electrodynamicist and expert on Tesla Shuttle Circuits (see 1991 and 2008). These relationships pertain to that which was removed from original Maxwell as he points out. Many people on these forums are just limited to the truncated equations and only look for related processes. They are not willing to consider anything else.

Anyway, the first group I had that week never got to see that running as it wasn't set up enough, so I decided to do a video with a similar setup and also title it You cannot prove OU over the Internet in view of what was happing on the OU group where they were under that delusion. It was a test of sorts to watch people believe it proved OU who wanted to believe that, and for those who wished to disbelieve it they naturally did that. My point was to say that you can never prove OU through a video not matter how good you show things. But you also cannot disprove OU with a video for the same reasons. But I made it so that the many bigger LEDs were clearly shown to be bright enough that it wouldn't be possible under the 3/4W input if it was divided so. I deliberated did not meter the wattage of the bulbs or use my light meter to drive these points how and expose the fallacies and mistaken notions. I have carefully tracked all the reactions and fallacies and tricks people have been doing to attack these ideas. This is a very hostile environment, but also very unreasonable. Both those for and against these ideas engage in fallacies, and I don't side with either but address them the same way.

So that is the context of this setup. It is not suitable for purposes of this forum because of the copyright of the book, the progressive nature of the kit, and the fact that the kit is more about the book than about the parts. That is the OU and beyond is what the book is more about, while the kit parts is a small part of the book and is for learning the subtle relationships. See you guys are seeking to find some group of parts to demonstrate OU. Your pdf shows this mistake. This is why you fail to succeed here. You need to instead learn the principles of free energy so that you can make many parts do what you want/need. That way you are not dependent upon one exact setup that you may easily lose or untune and not be able to get back. How many stories have we heard about that? If true, it was because they didn't know what they were doing but just stumbled upon something. Well that doesn't help everyone in this forum or the world to make a shrine out of one setup and merely copy that one. I have been at this full time for years now and I know what works. I know all the psychological hinderances against success. One is to insist that a certain arbitrary amount of output is necessary when it isn't. Another is to depend too heavily upon metering and/or make it seem impossible to ever prove. This seems to be the case in this forum when it has existed for years with not one success story. That is the impression that rests upon all the members here. My approach has been to use the technology at whatever level people want to. Not make the proof as important as people do on these lists. That is, maybe some people may not properly understand oscilloscopes and some meters but they can rotate batteries around for years and know they have OU. Others may run a fan along with other loads. Others may drive bikes now two or more times the distance. Or cars, even if they don't always rotate. There are many other types of loads such as heaters, refrigeration, Stan M fuel cell, acoustic, etc. where people have had OU but not needed to even understand the technical aspects of metering that is demanded in these big forums by people who have never understood experientially OU or free energy. They end up committing the prestige jargon fallacy while they belittle the common person for not playing their power games. So I have deliberately focused on making these things work in the real world, trying to get people to practically use the technology, more than to try and prove something to some academic who will never believe it anyway. People need to have hope that they can do something relatively easy, and these forums destroy that hope. And it appears to be purposefully from my perspective. I mean either this is true or it is not. If it is true then why make it out so difficult? I think it also relates to the fallacy that people put an arbitrary level of output on what is acceptable rather than just try and get people to experience at least the bare minimum. How many research groups have contacted me over the years, who have amazing technology (like these guys the other month with their nanotech), but are waiting forever for the big deal to come a long. And they never get it because they never just went out there and started doing something with it (as I convinced them to do). Do something rather than nothing. Show some progress or destroy all hope and just move on. That is the story of thousands of people who cycle through the free energy camp BY DESIGN. I'm just a backyard philosopher mechanic who has had access to many great engineers at the highest level of industry. Hopefully I have somewhat reversed that negative trend.

Your last question is somewhat addressed in the long-winded statements above. But specifically there is ambiguity in what you are saying as well as in the pdf and statements of others along these lines. I still don't have clarity from you guys as I don't think you are clear to yourself about this. It appears that you are under the mistake of what they are at OU (even as most people are on both forums) in that what is the nature of proof. I come to this with a lot of experience in philosophy and evidence and the history of science so I notice the mistakes along these lines and at least ambiguity. I see many that are merely technicians not have the ability to reason soundly and their views on evidence and proof are fundamentally mistaken. On OU it is in the extreme where it was assumed that some OU could be somehow proven and especially disproven over video, pictures, and words through the internet. Here it seems that you are looking for some third party to verify something and from that point I am not sure what you would do with that. Maybe you don't know because it never has happened yet. But consider what I have shared above about the nature of the one Resonance kit and look at your question. It really is not applicable in that case as I am not giving some 3 step assembly process to prove OU with. I'm showing the principles of OU so that you can run with it. But the kit is to learn the subtle relationships AT A SAFE LOW POWER LEVEL. We are generally working with 1/4W input.

Anyway, in relation to what I said above about proof, I look at people as sovereign entities that need to prove things to themselves. I don't judge people for the conclusions they honestly make or mistake. No man should expect what is proven to them to mean that others should believe the same based merely on them saying so. The mistake of your question is in removing the real world testing from the statement. I don't accept any testing as proven unless I can be there and understand the entire context/environment. No one should, and in my shoes no one would. I have done troubleshooting customer services for years now with basic hobbyists to top engineers all around the world. I know what I speak about in this respect that people are fallible and make all sorts of mistakes. I know I do all the time. So negative testimony is very limited. Your question is too universal as well, it depends on the specifics. If I ran my boat for three years with no external input and just rotated batteries around, and someone attempted to do the same and then put meters on it and shared that they don't conclude OU I would probably say that is to be expected (because of how they used their meters, and/or where). But I'm still driving while their meter is showing something they don't understand. So scientific legalism, or dependence upon power meters, which only measures closed loop dissipative energy, is not suited for open processes. They can still be used on many load loops as I have mentioned in previous postings. But in the center of the process they will be useless, or at least only confirm what I have always been saying. Engineers don't want to bother with free energy nonsense so they will display their arrogant pride and quickly use a meter to dismiss anything like this as fast as they can. I have seen this more times than probably anyone else. But I'm still driving all the while.

The issues in this case and for this entire forum are:
1. How to prove any testing has actually been done. If you are not there then this is impossible.
2. How to prove that exact replication has been done. People are easily mistaken.
3. How to prove what the exact environment was. This is important as an experiment can be deliberately sabotaged by purposefully modified environments.
4. How to prove that meters were properly calibrated, applied and interpreted. Again you have to be there and use equipment you know.
5. How to prove parts were not damaged. How many transistors and fets were partially damaged by experimenters who misjudged their results over the years? I deal with that all the time. So experiments can look bad and this is hidden.
6. How can any of this be conveyed to a person who wasn't able to demonstrate all of this to themselves?
Evidence is not proof. Only that degree of evidence is proof that warrants or fulfills the conditions of rational conviction. It is irrational to conclude on a truth of demonstration without having it fully demonstrated. And If I have already used something for years then tell me why I should disbelieve my own repeated experience/demonstration over someone else I have no ability to know what they have done? Such expectations have been the ruin of science. This is not mean it is unverifiable, it just means we can only prove things to ourselves. Thus the whole purpose of this forum and most forums is mistaken. Not totally mistaken, as you still can promote information sharing. But you just can't transfer proof to anyone but yourself. Each person will have to prove things to themselves. It will not matter if strangers tell other strangers that it does or doesn't work. Because testimony is a dime a dozen and no one has integrity and common sense or is logical in our day. A claim is made. Some party says it does this or that. So what? How many research labs lie for the money? We all know that. How can we tell they did it right or are merely mythbusters? Who is the judge for another person when we all can only be our own judge in matters of truths of demonstration. These are fundamental misunderstandings of the nature and conditions of physical sciences. It is a product of living in an online and TV/movie reality. It is science fiction. So on the flip side, this mistake only creates doubt about it being possible, because authoritarianism is setup as someone is the judge of what is truth and the rest are just slaves of this master. Some people here have already displayed their arrogance in this respect. They are the Lord over others. "They are the men and wisdom will die with them." Also, certain meters and certain testing become idols or gatekeepers to prevent people from using technology. You are only as good as what you put into something. What you put into a tool/meter is what you get out of it. If you are looking for Kirchhoff then use a power meter only. If you are beyond primary school you sit under Faraday who didn't have such meters. "As is your method so will be your outcome." A death circle or a closed loop? A selfish circuit or a loving giving path? I was once under this spell that was purposely set up to confuse us all. It took years to get to this place and realize the great hoax here. Again, I am not speaking merely theoretically here as someone familiar with the laws of evidence and the scientific method. But I am speaking from observation of people, their failures, more importantly their assumptions, and also positively how they have very easily used this technology when properly instructed or encouraged. (And as a sided note. much of this technology or processes have been used in every day products over the last 100 years but people don't realize it.) So I am looking at this from all asides, especially from history.

Which sounds unreasonable to you guys but that is why I say you can only prove truths of demonstration to yourself. No one can transfer their demonstration to you. It is not intuition or self-evident in nature (as you may want it to be).
Hi Rick.
Apologies for not being specific, nor up to speed on all your kits, but I guess I was referring to what I gather is your latest kit (a few folks here have been talking about it recently, and at OU.com)?
Based on your response I will assume that you have built this kit and that you have measured OU from the device. Incidentally, is this latest kit purely solid state, or is there some wheel, motor or generator involved?
In regards to what OU is, I'm not sure who here is confused about it, but I think I have a clear understanding of what it is. And you are correct, self-looping is not the only proof of OU; proper and accurate measurements will provide the answer as well.
At OUR, most of us here are hopeful that one day someone will discover and/or reveal a device and method for producing OU, it is just that we haven't yet seen such a device come into fruition.
A question; it is my understanding (and please correct me if my information is erroneous) that if someone has acquired and tested your kit, and concluded from their measurements the device is not producing energy at OU, that you will not accept their measurements as accurate or correct.
Is this true?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2905
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
OK Rick, I hear where you are coming from.

One thing I hope you can keep in mind, is that many folks like myself are heavily inclined to logical thought, and have difficulty understanding why something can't be "broken down" to its constituent parts. And in this case it applies to metrics and measurable results.

I'm not 100% certain, but one thing it appears you are saying is that it is not possible to achieve instantaneous measurements that exhibit OU operation, and that long-term results are the best, and perhaps only way to see OU with your kits/methods. That is difficult for me to understand.

For myself (and I think many folks in general), I would not be able to draw any conclusions from an experiment that might be showing one transmitter coil surrounded by 100 receiver coils, all connected to brightly-lit LED loads. The only thing this tells me as an observer is that there is enough power being supplied, and sufficient enough coupling to drive all the LEDs. Without determining how much power is being supplied by the supply, and how much power each LED is consuming, I would not be willing to go out on a limb and state that this is an OU operating condition. This type of scenario is simply too ambiguous to draw a conclusion that OU is being observed.

Even if the mA on the source is being monitored, and doesn't appear to change or decrease as loads are added, one can not simply assume this is an indication of OU. We have seen this type of operation many times (remember "crankypants" as a good example), and none produced anything truly workable in terms of driving a load with power from "nowhere".

If however one had a power supply that was a 200mA/9V wall-wort adapter, and it was connected to a device that clearly had no batteries in it, and the device was driving a bank of ten 100W incandescent light bulbs to full illumination, obviously it would be relatively easy without any measurements to draw the conclusion that OU operation is being observed. But many claims are made with devices producing power in the ranges of background, ambient noise (i.e. LED power ranges), and these are difficult at best to accurately measure, even with modern oscilloscopes. So I always advise folks to be cautious with their conclusions when working with such low power levels. These problems are exasperated by the use of relatively high frequencies, such as what I suspect your coils are using.

At any rate, it sounds like someone here at OUR may be acquiring one of your kits, and if so, we will do our best to examine its performance and post the results. Without some kind of test plan, guide, or regimen provided by the kit developer, the best one can do is apply objective, scientific methods, and that is what we shall do.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
Poynt99,
I fail to see why your comments do not apply to what I said. I believe you asked about my kits.
I have made all appropriate measurements for the Resonance Induction Coupler Kit. The problem with your insistence upon examining this kit is that I am not going to make my book available to this forum. That will not be consistent with what Brad told me is required on this forum. I am not going to make the book open. It is copyright and I do not give permission. I am not about to mention each point in the book so as to contradict that. I did not come here to promote the kit or recommend it for analysis. Someone else did and I told them not to do that. I am simply responding to questions.
I did not make the kit for people to prove OU even though it teaches on the themes or principles of free energy. I realized after many years in the free energy world that most people had no clear experience with resonance. The kit has been a real revelation to people along those lines. The first purpose of the kit was to provide the very tool that Don Smith directed people to start with, and which he first learned from at his very beginning in this research as a high school science teacher demonstrating that kit. About two years ago we ordered the kit for $280 and found only 7 pages of instructions and a few parts. This was merely to learn the ideas of wirelessly power, resonance, and crystal radio. It went over some of Faraday's principles. This was far too costly for people to learn these basics with, so we decided to do an entirely different thing. We decided to set the maximum cost at $100 and had much more to the basic idea. We did not include any of the information from that kit, and improve upon the coils and parts, and add more parts. I decided to write a fair size book of 89 pages on letter size. The book is made up of two sections. The first is for beginners and the second is merely advanced information extensive endnotes making up about 3/4 of the book. We wanted to make the book easy enough for some of my 11 year old relatives, while also giving people opportunity expand their research if they wanted to at a later date. There is a good bit of basic information in the various chapters as well as many experiments. So this is where the complexity of answering your question comes in. The book contains a lot of fundamental information about OU or free energy which the student can begin to explore with the kit. But the kit was not some kind of 1, 2, 3 step by step process to prove OU. It was rather a step by step process to understand Resonance and learn the several associated concepts, like impulse, and impedance. It is more introducing the ideas of OU AFTER these themes are learned. Initially I didn't want to address OU at all as I was just going to focus on resonance as mentioned. But half way through it I realized that I couldn't avoid the subject. Since the purpose was not to prove OU but to understand resonance, impulse, one wire transfer, and wireless in the Teslian context (as opposed to the linear and non-linear resistive mainstream context), the goal was to give tools to be able to make slight movements, and frequency, capacitive, inductive adjustments to observe subtle changes. When F6 and Brad chastised Aking for Bruno's video about my kit they failed to understand any of these things and the video they were watching. They just assumed the kit and video had to be about proving OU, when Bruno was actually just trying to consider the effects of grounding upon the circuits. This kind of hyper and immature reactions make this forum a complete failure for anyone to come here and hope to progress. You just get insulted and shot down by people just given free license to make assumptions. Grounding is also an important part of the kit in the context of Tesla's one wire systems. That is a fundamental part of Tesla's systems which most people skip when they jump from studying his AC to wireless. So I shared a lot of information about that. The kit parts have tools to learn these things, and the more parts you add to it the more outputs you can have. In most cases that will mean the input does not increase while outputs can be added. This is actually part of the mystery point to ponder while going through. I want the student to think of all the possibilities so that they may discover things than none of us have yet. Since the Maxwell equations were stripped (by H and L) of the goods that we are focused on in this and other kits, there has been very little consideration of the Teslian processes that were removed from consideration. So that was my goal as well. One obvious mystery point is that you begin to see with at least having three coils (the kit only comes with 2 but most people order a third) that you could keep adding coils without changing the input draw under some circumstances. The cover of the book, with many coils connected and wireless and grounded gives various hints and suggestions to try and learn from. The goal also of the book is to get the students to try and think for themselves. I really didn't want to be told these things before so that they could come to these conclusions on their own. Now there are several specific things that can result in observing OU with the kit. But the idea is to let the student learn how to figure that out and come to their own conclusions. I do not force those kinds of things. This is why people like it so much. They are free to explore and learn some of the most important electrical processes from a historical and wider perspective than they would get in college. The book is far from perfect and could use corrections here and there, but engineers are very satisfied with it.

Now eventually I decided to progress things more and more with my presentations, particularly at my meetings, since I had given a lot of advanced information in the book about having endless outputs or phase conjugate mirror processes, or sympathetic resonance. The object was not to make those an exercise but begin to consider the ideas. So I decided to demonstrate some of that at my meetings and talk a little about such in the videos, especially in relation to Don Smith systems. This is kind of expected of me. So last year in Lodi California I demonstrated a multiplication of the energy with many coils. I then was about to demonstrate something else, but I managed to arrange my coils just right so that I had almost perfect phasing between the transmitter and surrounding coils with the result that the input energy was almost zero ma and no matter how many ferrite rods wrapped with wire and loaded we added (all that we had there) the phase locking effect was so strong that it didn't detune as it normally would without that strong lock-in (a subject I teach on and show videos about). I didn't intend to show this, but it happened. In another different demonstration at the Midwest Expo this year in Shipshewana Indian I demonstrated the same sort of thing while all the attendees packed around our tables. I never even had time to completely set up but did at least get it down to 4ma 4V input under the same circumstances where I could keep adding ferrite coil with loads to the transmitter while it was in lock-in with other coils that were loaded as well. With both of these demonstrations I also showed meters and oscilloscopes for people to examine all the relationships. We also had other meters for frequency, EF, EMF, RF related studies. I only mention these because they were public events. I don't mention what I have done because that really doesn't matter and much of it is proprietary. I only get into the basics of this technology with the public for various reasons.

During the last meeting, since I had not realized how many coils I had in inventory, I decided to show something new as my attendees were returning again and again for more. I always show new things, and can do as many as 100 demonstrations over 22 hours in two full days. So I brought about 100 coils, and we made 10 larger coils. We only got around 75 smaller coils with capacitors and LEDs on them, but we filled up the table, as can be seen in the picture. The objective there was not to prove OU either. Most or all of the attendees already have long proven OU on their own and most of them had this kit already. But obviously no one had that many coils. My point was to show the relationships mentioned in the book. But this was the least important thing to the whole meeting and I put off it till the end because there was more important things to focus on. So we did only a few of the things. But I wanted to show how many coils could be affected on just one level. That no matter how many I added around it the input would only go down. Now in a few arrangement it would draw more input like Itsu mostly experienced. So we just moved the coils so that they would only bring the input down. We had the larger 6" coils around the center very large transmitter. Then I showed with several small and big coils that no matter where I placed them in the area around the transmitter (if you had made a globe starting from the edge of the coils) they would be powered and not affect the other coils loads or the transmitter. Ferrites with coils and loads were also added to the transmitter but I did not have time to position the coils in a more ideal way as I had previously demonstrated. But everyone was satisfied with the demonstration as they divided the input up by all the outputs and realized that the larger bulbs would not have been lit more than a flicker if this had been merely a division of the input energy. It wasn't my goal to prove that as I really didn't have time to set that up because of other more important setups that had to get done. So while this was impressive, what is more important was learning the special relationships as mentioned. This I presented on OU the other night when I extensively quoted from T. W. Barrett  on the subject as a leading electrodynamicist and expert on Tesla Shuttle Circuits (see 1991 and 2008). These relationships pertain to that which was removed from original Maxwell as he points out. Many people on these forums are just limited to the truncated equations and only look for related processes. They are not willing to consider anything else.

Anyway, the first group I had that week never got to see that running as it wasn't set up enough, so I decided to do a video with a similar setup and also title it You cannot prove OU over the Internet in view of what was happing on the OU group where they were under that delusion. It was a test of sorts to watch people believe it proved OU who wanted to believe that, and for those who wished to disbelieve it they naturally did that. My point was to say that you can never prove OU through a video not matter how good you show things. But you also cannot disprove OU with a video for the same reasons. But I made it so that the many bigger LEDs were clearly shown to be bright enough that it wouldn't be possible under the 3/4W input if it was divided so. I deliberated did not meter the wattage of the bulbs or use my light meter to drive these points how and expose the fallacies and mistaken notions. I have carefully tracked all the reactions and fallacies and tricks people have been doing to attack these ideas. This is a very hostile environment, but also very unreasonable. Both those for and against these ideas engage in fallacies, and I don't side with either but address them the same way.

So that is the context of this setup. It is not suitable for purposes of this forum because of the copyright of the book, the progressive nature of the kit, and the fact that the kit is more about the book than about the parts. That is the OU and beyond is what the book is more about, while the kit parts is a small part of the book and is for learning the subtle relationships. See you guys are seeking to find some group of parts to demonstrate OU. Your pdf shows this mistake. This is why you fail to succeed here. You need to instead learn the principles of free energy so that you can make many parts do what you want/need. That way you are not dependent upon one exact setup that you may easily lose or untune and not be able to get back. How many stories have we heard about that? If true, it was because they didn't know what they were doing but just stumbled upon something. Well that doesn't help everyone in this forum or the world to make a shrine out of one setup and merely copy that one. I have been at this full time for years now and I know what works. I know all the psychological hinderances against success. One is to insist that a certain arbitrary amount of output is necessary when it isn't. Another is to depend too heavily upon metering and/or make it seem impossible to ever prove. This seems to be the case in this forum when it has existed for years with not one success story. That is the impression that rests upon all the members here. My approach has been to use the technology at whatever level people want to. Not make the proof as important as people do on these lists. That is, maybe some people may not properly understand oscilloscopes and some meters but they can rotate batteries around for years and know they have OU. Others may run a fan along with other loads. Others may drive bikes now two or more times the distance. Or cars, even if they don't always rotate. There are many other types of loads such as heaters, refrigeration, Stan M fuel cell, acoustic, etc. where people have had OU but not needed to even understand the technical aspects of metering that is demanded in these big forums by people who have never understood experientially OU or free energy. They end up committing the prestige jargon fallacy while they belittle the common person for not playing their power games. So I have deliberately focused on making these things work in the real world, trying to get people to practically use the technology, more than to try and prove something to some academic who will never believe it anyway. People need to have hope that they can do something relatively easy, and these forums destroy that hope. And it appears to be purposefully from my perspective. I mean either this is true or it is not. If it is true then why make it out so difficult? I think it also relates to the fallacy that people put an arbitrary level of output on what is acceptable rather than just try and get people to experience at least the bare minimum. How many research groups have contacted me over the years, who have amazing technology (like these guys the other month with their nanotech), but are waiting forever for the big deal to come a long. And they never get it because they never just went out there and started doing something with it (as I convinced them to do). Do something rather than nothing. Show some progress or destroy all hope and just move on. That is the story of thousands of people who cycle through the free energy camp BY DESIGN. I'm just a backyard philosopher mechanic who has had access to many great engineers at the highest level of industry. Hopefully I have somewhat reversed that negative trend.

Your last question is somewhat addressed in the long-winded statements above. But specifically there is ambiguity in what you are saying as well as in the pdf and statements of others along these lines. I still don't have clarity from you guys as I don't think you are clear to yourself about this. It appears that you are under the mistake of what they are at OU (even as most people are on both forums) in that what is the nature of proof. I come to this with a lot of experience in philosophy and evidence and the history of science so I notice the mistakes along these lines and at least ambiguity. I see many that are merely technicians not have the ability to reason soundly and their views on evidence and proof are fundamentally mistaken. On OU it is in the extreme where it was assumed that some OU could be somehow proven and especially disproven over video, pictures, and words through the internet. Here it seems that you are looking for some third party to verify something and from that point I am not sure what you would do with that. Maybe you don't know because it never has happened yet. But consider what I have shared above about the nature of the one Resonance kit and look at your question. It really is not applicable in that case as I am not giving some 3 step assembly process to prove OU with. I'm showing the principles of OU so that you can run with it. But the kit is to learn the subtle relationships AT A SAFE LOW POWER LEVEL. We are generally working with 1/4W input.

Anyway, in relation to what I said above about proof, I look at people as sovereign entities that need to prove things to themselves. I don't judge people for the conclusions they honestly make or mistake. No man should expect what is proven to them to mean that others should believe the same based merely on them saying so. The mistake of your question is in removing the real world testing from the statement. I don't accept any testing as proven unless I can be there and understand the entire context/environment. No one should, and in my shoes no one would. I have done troubleshooting customer services for years now with basic hobbyists to top engineers all around the world. I know what I speak about in this respect that people are fallible and make all sorts of mistakes. I know I do all the time. So negative testimony is very limited. Your question is too universal as well, it depends on the specifics. If I ran my boat for three years with no external input and just rotated batteries around, and someone attempted to do the same and then put meters on it and shared that they don't conclude OU I would probably say that is to be expected (because of how they used their meters, and/or where). But I'm still driving while their meter is showing something they don't understand. So scientific legalism, or dependence upon power meters, which only measures closed loop dissipative energy, is not suited for open processes. They can still be used on many load loops as I have mentioned in previous postings. But in the center of the process they will be useless, or at least only confirm what I have always been saying. Engineers don't want to bother with free energy nonsense so they will display their arrogant pride and quickly use a meter to dismiss anything like this as fast as they can. I have seen this more times than probably anyone else. But I'm still driving all the while.

The issues in this case and for this entire forum are:
1. How to prove any testing has actually been done. If you are not there then this is impossible.
2. How to prove that exact replication has been done. People are easily mistaken.
3. How to prove what the exact environment was. This is important as an experiment can be deliberately sabotaged by purposefully modified environments.
4. How to prove that meters were properly calibrated, applied and interpreted. Again you have to be there and use equipment you know.
5. How to prove parts were not damaged. How many transistors and fets were partially damaged by experimenters who misjudged their results over the years? I deal with that all the time. So experiments can look bad and this is hidden.
6. How can any of this be conveyed to a person who wasn't able to demonstrate all of this to themselves?
Evidence is not proof. Only that degree of evidence is proof that warrants or fulfills the conditions of rational conviction. It is irrational to conclude on a truth of demonstration without having it fully demonstrated. And If I have already used something for years then tell me why I should disbelieve my own repeated experience/demonstration over someone else I have no ability to know what they have done? Such expectations have been the ruin of science. This is not mean it is unverifiable, it just means we can only prove things to ourselves. Thus the whole purpose of this forum and most forums is mistaken. Not totally mistaken, as you still can promote information sharing. But you just can't transfer proof to anyone but yourself. Each person will have to prove things to themselves. It will not matter if strangers tell other strangers that it does or doesn't work. Because testimony is a dime a dozen and no one has integrity and common sense or is logical in our day. A claim is made. Some party says it does this or that. So what? How many research labs lie for the money? We all know that. How can we tell they did it right or are merely mythbusters? Who is the judge for another person when we all can only be our own judge in matters of truths of demonstration. These are fundamental misunderstandings of the nature and conditions of physical sciences. It is a product of living in an online and TV/movie reality. It is science fiction. So on the flip side, this mistake only creates doubt about it being possible, because authoritarianism is setup as someone is the judge of what is truth and the rest are just slaves of this master. Some people here have already displayed their arrogance in this respect. They are the Lord over others. "They are the men and wisdom will die with them." Also, certain meters and certain testing become idols or gatekeepers to prevent people from using technology. You are only as good as what you put into something. What you put into a tool/meter is what you get out of it. If you are looking for Kirchhoff then use a power meter only. If you are beyond primary school you sit under Faraday who didn't have such meters. "As is your method so will be your outcome." A death circle or a closed loop? A selfish circuit or a loving giving path? I was once under this spell that was purposely set up to confuse us all. It took years to get to this place and realize the great hoax here. Again, I am not speaking merely theoretically here as someone familiar with the laws of evidence and the scientific method. But I am speaking from observation of people, their failures, more importantly their assumptions, and also positively how they have very easily used this technology when properly instructed or encouraged. (And as a sided note. much of this technology or processes have been used in every day products over the last 100 years but people don't realize it.) So I am looking at this from all asides, especially from history.

Which sounds unreasonable to you guys but that is why I say you can only prove truths of demonstration to yourself. No one can transfer their demonstration to you. It is not intuition or self-evident in nature (as you may want it to be).

blah blah blah.

"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease."
We can see that this is not the case.

So many empty words and unfounded sentences, I'm very impressed by this obfuscation.





---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxT2EuQG5rU

This is some of the more advanced methods which Rick covers in the book.  Maybe this is the video Rick was referring to?
There is a warning that it becomes more dangerous to work with.
(BTW I have already lost one gate driver - silly me)


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Poynt99,
I didn't say that. In fact I do just that in my teaching. And that is exactly my point. You need to look at the principle approach which in fact are specific processes to consider in a given context. That will be the point of the cheat sheet which is an developing idea. Again, we are not talking about magical parts, or that parts are negative resistor parts, but that parts are used in a specific way. I'm searching right now for the best/shortest way to categorize this as a principle or theme. We have to move away from expecting the goods from mere parts, to using a part in a given context. That is the point I am making, where I think the groups have been generally wrong. Moving away from the personalities and parts classification to the actual processes.

Well instantaneous observation is rather premature. For example, the phony charge has been created that batteries have been consumed by some of these processes, when in fact we have seen them only increase their capacity over the years. So in battery systems that would definitely be necessary to look at all the factors. So anything that could be a consumable situation would have to be considered. That is just one thing that instantly comes to mind. Obviously repeating the same experiment in all locations and altitudes would also be a consideration. When dealing with RF systems especially you would want to see it out in the middle of nowhere and also in the city or around other radiation.
But no, I am not saying there isn't instantaneous observations.

If you didn't gather from my statement, which was based upon seeing the picture and watching the one video, I did say that the power input was constantly shown with the power supply showing exact volts and Amperes. That would be silly to suggest something unusual was happening. This would be like Gerard Morin's first video showing a motor driving another motor without showing the amperage draw from the two batteries. I did actually show what it takes, and that he didn't have any gain at all in that demonstration. What I did however, in my recent video was show the power input but I deliberated didn't do any power measurements because I was attempting to prove several other things that I rightly predicted would happen on the OU forum. I titled the video that you cannot prove OU over the Internet for one. But I also provided just enough load so that it was fairly obvious that more output was produced than you could from that input. It was never intended to be a proof, but based upon the assumptions of most people--that you supposedly can prove something from a video--I gave them what they wanted but deliberately without the meters so that it would force my point home. They are only satisfied with meter readings and not other types of energy outputs that are obvious. Again, I was not trying to prove OU myself, but merely on their level of assumptions and expectations (that is the way the judge disproof claims that they readily accept). So this is the context of how this all developed.

It is not ambiguous at all and would only be if you were trying to evaluate anything from a video only. Again, this was not proposed by me as some ideal way to prove OU. But it is very easy to do nevertheless. Ideally I would just show zero input in the real world, or negative. Of course that is self-running as everyone wants to demand these days. But that would be your instantaneous demonstration.

Yes there are different kinds of loads that are more or less appropriate. Any of the bigger LED bulbs have capacitors that can be measured and easily calculated. So once a proper filter like that really smooths out the output to a constant current condition, that is the only place where you can properly measure power. Because power meters will never accurately measure or predict the energy of an impulse because impulse is entirely different than constant current and is nonconservative and results in gains when there is a suitable collector/load. So this is why metering is conditional as to where you place the meter. If your load is directly impulsed then the meter reading will not match the total work being done. That is an interesting observation which we have shown countless engineers with their very meters--the best meters in the world. So scientists would rather measure a constant current loop, and that is what I have been saying. You can monitor the input power, and any and all final loops with loads when they are constant current. But to measure elsewhere in addition will only show that power meter measurements do not reveal actual energy flows and that they can't predict the amount of work that can be done. This is absolutely critical to understand and that is so many have failed in this research. They just assume that the power measurements are always indicative of output possibilities. But power measurements are only good for a closed loop to indicate how fast you are killing the associated source charge. And yet a power meter can measure some power on a completely open system that does not discharge the source charge, so that is another thing to deal with. The point is that you just need to properly evaluate what actual work is being done in the real world without depending exclusively on power meters. It is just one circular argument because it needs to be proved that such meters are absolutely authoritative in that way. If they are so assumed, as so many do, then naturally this whole forum is a waste of time. So the first principles of free energy research are the associated ideas that distinguish constant current, closed looped, linear and nonlinear resistive processes from impulse or resonance open nonlinear reactive systems. These are fundamentally different even though we do what Kron's lifelong search resulted in, that the two are done together. The environmental inputs are not measurable as they are directly from the aether. As such they will never be acceptable even if you have later outputs after such processes that are measurable gains. I hope you understand this. I have never advocated a no meter testing, but metering has to be more carefully understood in this context. We can always run loads directly and consider the work done. In that case the load itself is a negative resistor where the energy converges into the load. Or we can take that load and loop it with a resistive load in a constant current loop to satisfy the need for metering. Without making that distinction then you fail to understand OU claims and systems. So even if metering shows no or little reading to a negative resistor, it can be helpful to show everyone that it is a limited tool that can only be used under a special case condition (even if that is what people are only used to).

Well there are at least several people here at OUR that have the kit. But I do not give permission to disclose the copyright information from the book. So it is not an example to be used here. I'm not saying that people can't do some things with the coils and evaluate such. But as I mentioned previously that there is a lot more to the kit than the electric parts. The book expands upon the basic experiments to reveal several OU processes. The purpose of the kit is not for group development but for personal exploration. That is why I didn't want it on the forums as it then kills the beneficial learning/discovery process that is important for students to experience. Do you understand that? Again, you can study the tank circuit and figure out different ways to show gain from such. That is another specific point. That is easy to do. But the kit is not some oversimplistic matter for the purpose of having a few parts put together to prove OU for some forum.

When I get the website more populated with important  content then I will mention it and people can see all this better. I'll develop some of the things mentioned here.

OK Rick, I hear where you are coming from.
One thing I hope you can keep in mind, is that many folks like myself are heavily inclined to logical thought, and have difficulty understanding why something can't be "broken down" to its constituent parts. And in this case it applies to metrics and measurable results.
I'm not 100% certain, but one thing it appears you are saying is that it is not possible to achieve instantaneous measurements that exhibit OU operation, and that long-term results are the best, and perhaps only way to see OU with your kits/methods. That is difficult for me to understand.
For myself (and I think many folks in general), I would not be able to draw any conclusions from an experiment that might be showing one transmitter coil surrounded by 100 receiver coils, all connected to brightly-lit LED loads. The only thing this tells me as an observer is that there is enough power being supplied, and sufficient enough coupling to drive all the LEDs. Without determining how much power is being supplied by the supply, and how much power each LED is consuming, I would not be willing to go out on a limb and state that this is an OU operating condition. This type of scenario is simply too ambiguous to draw a conclusion that OU is being observed.
Even if the mA on the source is being monitored, and doesn't appear to change or decrease as loads are added, one can not simply assume this is an indication of OU. We have seen this type of operation many times (remember "crankypants" as a good example), and none produced anything truly workable in terms of driving a load with power from "nowhere".
If however one had a power supply that was a 200mA/9V wall-wort adapter, and it was connected to a device that clearly had no batteries in it, and the device was driving a bank of ten 100W incandescent light bulbs to full illumination, obviously it would be relatively easy without any measurements to draw the conclusion that OU operation is being observed. But many claims are made with devices producing power in the ranges of background, ambient noise (i.e. LED power ranges), and these are difficult at best to accurately measure, even with modern oscilloscopes. So I always advise folks to be cautious with their conclusions when working with such low power levels. These problems are exasperated by the use of relatively high frequencies, such as what I suspect your coils are using.
At any rate, it sounds like someone here at OUR may be acquiring one of your kits, and if so, we will do our best to examine its performance and post the results. Without some kind of test plan, guide, or regimen provided by the kit developer, the best one can do is apply objective, scientific methods, and that is what we shall do.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Once again F6, you show up here with nothing valuable but to totally dismiss something without reason. Merely because you can't bother to read something. There is a difference between being thorough or detailed and obfuscation (they are actually opposites). That is actually what you do when you made a fool of yourself and repeated contradictor yourself (you illustrated your point in your very reasoning).
These are not matters that can be addressed in one sentence. What you actually are doing is arguing as a simpleton who either doesn't have the ability to consider involved matters and/or rejects considering such while attacking others for exposing their ignorance or inability. Your words are but games, and you demonstrate your own folly the more you attack.
I have explained the context of this which obviously takes some development. And part of that context is distinguishing mainstream processes and measurements and expectations with free energy type research processes. That is impossible to say in once sentence. Anyway, I expect this from you because you just recklessly attack without even realizing what you are saying. Shows some serious personal problems. A dangerous person indeed. 

blah blah blah.

"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease."
We can see that this is not the case.

So many empty words and unfounded sentences, I'm very impressed by this obfuscation.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1057
RFQUERY
Quote
Such a kit would be problematic to sell. You open yourself up to trouble. You would have research into what it would take to have the proper legal disclaimers and avoid liability problems. The idea overlaps weapons systems and EMP technology so it is risky to get into. You have to consider what kind of effects will result from selling something like that. What is it you are trying to teach people?

I was only joking and I would never sell the technology as a kit or otherwise for the reasons you have pointed out.

I have read many of your posts and watched many of your video's and think your moving in a sensible direction. This isn't my first rodeo and I have had many interactions with a broad range of different people over the years. For me it feels like a whirlpool with people pulling in every direction trying to serve their interests always wanting more and more but unable to rationally justify why. In the end my path was similar to yours I suppose and I had to make it clear I am in control and I will determine what I will or will not do. First there was peer pressure then "just sign your name here" then threats and intimidation and talk of lawyers and it always seems to turn into a dog and pony show led by the terminally misguided.

I also like how you write lengthy well thought out responses describing in detail what your thinking is relative to your actions. I have found that people willing to spend the time and expend the effort to make there thoughts known are more sincere in general.

I hope you can stick around for a while and perhaps we could debate more of these concepts in detail. I know your on the right track because I have been down this path your on before. We see these patents you have detailed and they make no sense because it's always just coils of wire and circuit interrupters or switches. There is quite literally nothing there for the layman but everything is in fact present and accounted for to those skilled in the art. What is always missing is the cause not shown which is the fields present, how they interact, there geometry and there timing function. Strange as it may seem the very thing which makes these extraordinary devices work is the one thing most people have chosen to completely ignore.

I like to think of it this way... this is not new technology it is very old technology built upon an entirely different premise than what we would consider normal to us in this day and age. It does not rely solely on "conduction currents" but in fact avoids them, it does not utilize transformer action like we do and it inherently limits the dissipation of energy within the system. I think Viktor Schauberger nailed the concept... do the opposite of what we do today and you will be well on your way.

The reasoning is sound in my opinion, the reason so few people can understand how this technology works is because they cannot imagine a way of doing things other than the way they have come to know. It is habitual... like a drug addict not being able to imagine what it was like not being high all the time so many years ago. Like the terminally insane being insane for no other reason than they have no comprehension of what our normal is because to them their insanity is normal and it is we who are insane. Our history is littered with proof that we have been terminally misguided in the past however the line of past/future resides with us in us and we determine how our timeline plays out.

On a note of interest, after watching your video's and reading your literature I should mention I'm an Atheist, lol. However one cannot, in my opinion, embrace the works of some of the greatest scientific minds in our history and not be a spiritual person. It goes towards the notion of how we frame our perception of things knowing there are things out there beyond our imagination.

In any case, nice to have you here.


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
This is encouraging, and not only because you are a fellow Canadian. Like I said I'm working on a website to make these things possible. It will promote the idea of forum discussion on each free energy principle. So we will see how this will develop.

RFQUERY
I was only joking and I would never sell the technology as a kit or otherwise for the reasons you have pointed out.

I have read many of your posts and watched many of your video's and think your moving in a sensible direction. This isn't my first rodeo and I have had many interactions with a broad range of different people over the years. For me it feels like a whirlpool with people pulling in every direction trying to serve their interests always wanting more and more but unable to rationally justify why. In the end my path was similar to yours I suppose and I had to make it clear I am in control and I will determine what I will or will not do. First there was peer pressure then "just sign your name here" then threats and intimidation and talk of lawyers and it always seems to turn into a dog and pony show led by the terminally misguided.

I also like how you write lengthy well thought out responses describing in detail what your thinking is relative to your actions. I have found that people willing to spend the time and expend the effort to make there thoughts known are more sincere in general.

I hope you can stick around for a while and perhaps we could debate more of these concepts in detail. I know your on the right track because I have been down this path your on before. We see these patents you have detailed and they make no sense because it's always just coils of wire and circuit interrupters or switches. There is quite literally nothing there for the layman but everything is in fact present and accounted for to those skilled in the art. What is always missing is the cause not shown which is the fields present, how they interact, there geometry and there timing function. Strange as it may seem the very thing which makes these extraordinary devices work is the one thing most people have chosen to completely ignore.

I like to think of it this way... this is not new technology it is very old technology built upon an entirely different premise than what we would consider normal to us in this day and age. It does not rely solely on "conduction currents" but in fact avoids them, it does not utilize transformer action like we do and it inherently limits the dissipation of energy within the system. I think Viktor Schauberger nailed the concept... do the opposite of what we do today and you will be well on your way.

The reasoning is sound in my opinion, the reason so few people can understand how this technology works is because they cannot imagine a way of doing things other than the way they have come to know. It is habitual... like a drug addict not being able to imagine what it was like not being high all the time so many years ago. Like the terminally insane being insane for no other reason than they have no comprehension of what our normal is because to them their insanity is normal and it is we who are insane. Our history is littered with proof that we have been terminally misguided in the past however the line of past/future resides with us in us and we determine how our timeline plays out.

On a note of interest, after watching your video's and reading your literature I should mention I'm an Atheist, lol. However one cannot, in my opinion, embrace the works of some of the greatest scientific minds in our history and not be a spiritual person. It goes towards the notion of how we frame our perception of things knowing there are things out there beyond our imagination.

In any case, nice to have you here.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
RF,

I'm baaaaack!  After much consideration, I've decided to query (pun intended) you on some items.

In your work, would you say that you are experiencing OU with common components due to outside energy input from the aether, Heaviside component, or whatever term you wish to use?  IOW, this extra energy input would be outside known classical closed loop theory?

How are you coming with my requested KVL violation example?

Regards,
Pm

   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:41:36 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Brad,
I never said that. I was explaining how the Resonance kit got dragged into this forum and that it wasn't the kit you guys assumed. It was much more encompassing than a mere proof of OU idea.
I did mention other systems I have long shown as more suitable. But I said that I will get the website up first to give the full context of such systems, and all/or most free energy systems.

Cool
As RF dose not wish to present an OU device,and you know where he is coming from,and how he dose it,then perhaps you could present us with an OU device ?.
Brad
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
It's kind of unstable, deleting your posts and coming back so dramatically.
While classical theory in the sense of mainstream doesn't want to admit these things, in real world technology they still have to deal with this phenomena and the science for it is already being used by everyday people in a purely negative sense to protect the circuitry. So it has become mainstream already and people just don't think about that. Software is used to predict and manage such processes. It is an amazing trick to pull off in convincing people that these things are non-existent even though existing technology is full of it already. And I am not even talking about advanced weapons systems or other non-electrical OU outputs that are readily used.
It is not so black and white as you portray in your question, and which everyone assumes in these debates. I deal with real world technology so I am coming from the tech side and not the theoretical nonexistent side of things. Again, most of my customers are technicians all around the world dealing with these what I am talking about. Some of them are or were at the top of their industry. They know from experience how this oversimplistic stripped down theory does not hold in the real world. Just go back to Stienmetz if you can study him and look at the context of his problems he had to solve in this respect. Are you aware of that? The theory is actually false because it is only partially true. It is true only under a special case context. But that is not the real world. So that is why there are so many filters and safeties to prevent these negative processes from destroying the profit based symmetry death loops.
You can find your examples with Stienmetz if you want. But just look and what Lewin showed. I already responded to you that KVL holds as a special case. So the violation is not a violation of Kirchhoff, but of the false claim that the KVL is universal. I have started editing a video where I show a professor presenting on the subject and then slipping in the truth that it is only for a steady state. So this is already admitted in standard teaching. It does not apply to anything else, or the things that I have been doing, or most circuits that people are using. I'm not sure if you have studied these things or not, but I will get my video finished when I get the time for it. What you can do is take what Lewin demonstrated and replace the reverse voltmeter with a negative resistance loop as I have done with my motors for years, and then you will realize what he is talking about. It doesn't disprove KVL because KVL does not go there or address that loop or change. That is why people keep saying, Oh we can't measure pulsing, it is too hard to determine. Actually it is because they can see that they don't have the equipment to properly consider impulsing (as they notice the faster the meters they have the more the numbers change) and the results do not add up. Also, measuring is it's own loop and not the actual load. It is just an estimate of the load.

So you have KVL under steady state. ALL AGREED! But that doesn't tell us where the energy is coming from or even what it affects in the local environment. Once we depart from that, like when we turn it on to get to a steady state condition and before we turn it off (both of which are moments where you do not have steady state), or where we have an impulse, then KVL is outside of it's specific sphere. Now we have reactive loops that are nonconservative when the right paths/loads are applied. Here is one study: http://vixra.org/pdf/1005.0078v1.pdf
RF,
I'm baaaaack!  After much consideration, I've decided to query (pun intended) you on some items.
In your work, would you say that you are experiencing OU with common components due to outside energy input from the aether, Heaviside component, or whatever term you wish to use?  IOW, this extra energy input would be outside known classical closed loop theory?
How are you coming with my requested KVL violation example?
Regards,
Pm
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
Rick
just so you are aware ,Brad had asked me to send a note to Admin here to invite you to
a discussion [off the front page]
I tried to get you at the time.. [by text or call] about this and what user name to use or if you would even join here?]
at the time this was happening My mom was in the hospital down in NY ]unbeknownst to
me ..the end of her Time here] and I did not really get all this put together properly.
so I just made up a user name [temporary]

you can change that somehow in your profile !

RE Partzman
he is an amazing fellow here who toils untold hours to understand this work.

and has fortunately shared his own queries with this community , I would be remiss if I did not
add... he tries to live by Standards or examples which "your Mentor" taught !

To say this is a struggle in this day and age would be an understatement.
HOWEVER
Here at this forum we have fought way too much about topics unrelated to our theme.
and am NOT going there .


But you must realize that your path seems in conflict to your mentor's teachings [how to live a life]
and I could not imagine a business model which could justify your path?

we are after all talking about life saving ..planet saving technologies here...not cake recipes or better mousetraps ?

I for one could not put my head on the pillow at night without having an immediate path towards
getting this type of claim out to the world [your claim]

and if you are concerned for your safety as a reason to not share something?
leave it here and watch what happens !!

as Jimboot says ...successful replications or word of mouth are the best advertisement
there can be !!

you asked how many members ?

between the few FE OU forums [100-200 K ?

something like this claim would take just "ONE" to change the world !!

and IMO the clock is ticking ..and every second that goes bye ..someone is suffering for the lack of it.

respectfully
Chet K [not an anonymous person behind a handle [your pet peeve here and elsewhere]











   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
It's kind of unstable, deleting your posts and coming back so dramatically.

Why thank you Rick!  Hmmm, I see that you are paying considerable attention here which supports my decision to delete my technology on this forum.

Quote
While classical theory in the sense of mainstream doesn't want to admit these things, in real world technology they still have to deal with this phenomena and the science for it is already being used by everyday people in a purely negative sense to protect the circuitry. So it has become mainstream already and people just don't think about that. Software is used to predict and manage such processes. It is an amazing trick to pull off in convincing people that these things are non-existent even though existing technology is full of it already. And I am not even talking about advanced weapons systems or other non-electrical OU outputs that are readily used.
It is not so black and white as you portray in your question, and which everyone assumes in these debates. I deal with real world technology so I am coming from the tech side and not the theoretical nonexistent side of things. Again, most of my customers are technicians all around the world dealing with these what I am talking about. Some of them are or were at the top of their industry. They know from experience how this oversimplistic stripped down theory does not hold in the real world. Just go back to Stienmetz if you can study him and look at the context of his problems he had to solve in this respect. Are you aware of that? The theory is actually false because it is only partially true. It is true only under a special case context. But that is not the real world. So that is why there are so many filters and safeties to prevent these negative processes from destroying the profit based symmetry death loops.

Yada, yada, yada!  You're really good at regurgitating stuff!  The answer to my question is black or white, yes or no.  But answering a simple yes or no is beneath your intelligence quotient as you must maintain the facade of an all knowing one.  So, I have to take your answer as a yes---please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Quote
You can find your examples with Stienmetz if you want. But just look and what Lewin showed. I already responded to you that KVL holds as a special case. So the violation is not a violation of Kirchhoff, but of the false claim that the KVL is universal. I have started editing a video where I show a professor presenting on the subject and then slipping in the truth that it is only for a steady state. So this is already admitted in standard teaching. It does not apply to anything else, or the things that I have been doing, or most circuits that people are using. I'm not sure if you have studied these things or not, but I will get my video finished when I get the time for it. What you can do is take what Lewin demonstrated and replace the reverse voltmeter with a negative resistance loop as I have done with my motors for years, and then you will realize what he is talking about. It doesn't disprove KVL because KVL does not go there or address that loop or change. That is why people keep saying, Oh we can't measure pulsing, it is too hard to determine. Actually it is because they can see that they don't have the equipment to properly consider impulsing (as they notice the faster the meters they have the more the numbers change) and the results do not add up. Also, measuring is it's own loop and not the actual load. It is just an estimate of the load.

Again more yada, yada!  Professor Lewin and his KVL video, he got it wrong dude!  This is easily proven on the bench with standard, oh wait...... I didn't have a/your negative resistance loop!  How much are they?  BTW, I don't have any problems measuring the energy levels of pulses or any complex waveforms.  You keep referencing "meters" all the time regarding measurements.  I hope you have had the privilege of using the latest scopes that are on the market these days.  No problem taking these "difficult" measurements in fact, I bet they would even handle your negative resistance batteries, motors, loops and such.

Quote
So you have KVL under steady state. ALL AGREED! But that doesn't tell us where the energy is coming from or even what it affects in the local environment. Once we depart from that, like when we turn it on to get to a steady state condition and before we turn it off (both of which are moments where you do not have steady state), or where we have an impulse, then KVL is outside of it's specific sphere. Now we have reactive loops that are nonconservative when the right paths/loads are applied. Here is one study: http://vixra.org/pdf/1005.0078v1.pdf

I've had this paper for some time.  Have you actually tried the ENC yourself?

Still waiting for that KVL circuit.

Pm
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
Rick,

Two short stories involving special inventors in the search for OU who I was privileged to converse and interact with in past years. 

The first was Bill Wampler who has since passed on from what I understand.  I made contact with Bill through relatives which is another story in itself but not important.  What is important however, is that Bill had made millions developing and producing desalination equipment that he sold and installed throughout the world.  With the profits, he put together a team of engineers devoted to researching and creating FE devices.  When I first met him, his company was manufacturing a 10-12kw black box that he gave away to third world countries in regions that otherwise had no source of power.  He had no intent of entering any markets to sell these units and avoided any government intervention like the plague.  This was a true FE device that I sorely wanted to become involved with but that wasn't to be.  In our conversation, I quizzed him regarding the technology which was solid state and only required a starting battery much like an ICE.  Of course he gave me no details but I still remember several statements he made like "the energy is all around us" and "the problem is, you must first learn how to collect it, and then you must learn how to control it".  He had a very serious emphasis on the control factor.

The second is Paul Landers.  Paul had found me on some forum somewhere and commissioned me to design and  build some specialized high speed, high power switching circuits.  These circuits were used to build a solid state version of a mechanical device he and a friend had developed based on Paul's theories.  I was to do this free gratis so to help convince me to get involved, Paul described their work and sent pix of their setup in a running state.  One forum member here has a copy of these pix but basically, the machine was a counter-rotating magnetic field arrangement that while running had turned the framework made of wood and metal to plasma.  That's right, solid objects turned to plasma. 

Now, there was a common denominator to these stories and it is the point of this post.  Both of these parties experienced runaway conditions in their development stages.  Bill stated that their experience scarred the living daylights out of all present and they vacated the facility and hoped for the best.  Paul and his associate experienced the same runaway in his garage lab of which the plasma pix were evidence.  They too vacated the premises while hoping for the best.  In both cases all power had been removed from the devices during their runaway condition and yet they continued to gain in energy until reaching a peak before subsiding.

My point is, both of these entities were extracting energy from the surrounding aether and both experienced runaway conditions.  These are real world stories and true.

Have you ever experienced any such event?

Pm           
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Chet,
I'm sorry to hear about what you went through.
As for my user name, I usually have my name. I don't think I have ever had another user name.
I have had some mentors, but I assume you mean The Mentor. OK.
I really don't know how to read your comment about my path being in conflict with my Mentor. Could you tell me what you mean. I really am unsure of what you are saying. What business model? I sell parts and chargers and energizers that people ask me for. I started doing that some 25 years ago with old book classics people wanted republished. That is a ministry I did for years, for no profit. I did the same with this stuff, that is in giving people what they asked for. So what conflict are you talking about?
As for free energy being the savior of the world, that is a big mistake. Tesla made the claim that the machine was the savior and we just had to master it. Electricity may have changed things, but are we any better for it? Yes we could be, but morally speaking people are worse. The world is far more polluted. Better tech, including free energy, does not make people better, it just gives them more opportunity to further their pursuits (good or bad). It has given more tools now to control people in crazy ways. Well there is no point fighting it as it is not going away. So I choose to promote temperance, safety, and clean energy. I have helped thousands of people all around the world with this. I build my customers by taking the time to talk to them for hours about all these and more important subjects. I'm not sure what part of that is in conflict. I also have private dealings that I don't share publicly. I'm setting up a free energy website where I am organizing all the information in one place. So what am I missing?
Yes I have been severely persecuted for doing this work. I am not afraid of anyone. But free energy is not the most important thing in life. For example, I have found that 90-95% of the problem with people not experiencing free energy is psychological/spiritual. Unless we forsake our bias practice, which is drilled into in the schools, then what science can we do? Prejudice is primary sin, they go hand in hand. To assume without sufficient reason is illogically fatal in the matter. That goes for and against a claim. Having said that, it is far more important to help people with that spiritual problem then trying to convince them of something they don't want to believe. Once they fix that primary problem then they are very open to all truth, but not in a gullible way. Both credulous and incredulousness are the same evil. So that is what I will lay my life down for, not for technology.

I suppose you may be referring to the more advanced systems. These will not be allowed for the general public because they are too dangerous and a national security threat to most countries. Whether you and I agree with that or not, that is how such is deemed. You get a small system that can produce a lot of power for free and think about that? Such systems distributed among the general public would not just destroy the entire cartel structure of the modern schools science departments, and it would not just destroy the energy monopolies, but as a result there would be untold chaos resulting of the likes you would never imagine. But apart from that, it would be very dangerous for people. I have spent 15 years doing this and I know how foolish people get in their mad rush for free energy. They almost always put safety aside. But these systems will kill you faster than you realize. Just like I am dead set against the Tesla Motor company and their driverless systems because no death is worth any convenience (you can always have the safeties assist drivers), in the same way, I could never distribute something that most certainly would result in many people killing themselves as a result. And that is just one side of it. There are also a lot of bad people who would do many things with it. And these are legitimate reasons for concern here. There are ways around it and that is what people are doing. But no one is going to sell anything that powerful to the general public. If you want to be a power company then that is one thing.

So I have tried to be mindful of these things, and in fact whenever I have shared some things that I gather have crossed a line, I have seen immediate responses. In 2011 after I showed the big boat, everyone turned on me. The problem with the boat was not the size, but the fact that I showed the very simple circuit could do more than everyone assumed. It still had a battery bank and I assumed was not crossing a line. But after looking back at all what happened in those years, I realize that certain people were actually there to suppress free energy technology by being gatekeepers who controlled by never doing anything but entertaining people with stories, etc. Then when I persisted in making the kits, and didn't realize they were not joking when they told me not to do them, they attacked me after that last big meeting in 2011. I ended up losing almost everything over the next year. That was the cost of making the electric Porsche, lawnmower, boat, and 30 coiler demonstrations. After having all these guys recorded speaking praises of me at the meeting, the very next day my manufacturer, one of them, dropped me. The only reason he gave was because my website was not good enough and that I didn't tip a pizza delivery person when they came 2 hours late a second day in a row. But I'm not getting into the more serious matters.

So my line is that I will share the principles of free energy and will provide the Benitez systems, motor energizer systems, and even the basics of my third stage process that lets you multiply the output many times. But I will just show you the way to do the full black box. I will show you the way to do the Don Smith systems. Even the Stan M systems is relatively easy. I know other people who have them in cars. But that is asking for trouble and theft at least. My goal has been both education and getting something out there. It has made a difference. It has been a rough ride as I have come to learn that most of the big players cannot be trusted...


he tries to live by Standards or examples which "your Mentor" taught !
To say this is a struggle in this day and age would be an understatement.
HOWEVER
Here at this forum we have fought way too much about topics unrelated to our theme.
and am NOT going there .

But you must realize that your path seems in conflict to your mentor's teachings [how to live a life]
and I could not imagine a business model which could justify your path?
we are after all talking about life saving ..planet saving technologies here...not cake recipes or better mousetraps ?
I for one could not put my head on the pillow at night without having an immediate path towards
getting this type of claim out to the world [your claim]
and if you are concerned for your safety as a reason to not share something?
leave it here and watch what happens !!
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
PM,
Your next post is worthy of response, but this one serves no benefit.
I find it strange that you have OU technology, 3 examples, and you just forgot about it and went on to something else. Either this group has some serious problems, and you don't have much interest in seeing things through, or something else is happening. Does anyone else understand this point? What was the problem? Why is this so difficult? Is it a meter problem??? Are these unstable?
And why would you delete your posts and take off because of me? I don't represent this forum. I am still learning about it. You should know that. I don't get the all in, all out, then this.
I am not all knowing, as some of you have that claim. I learn from everyone, as we are all students. But I make sure of the things I promote or say. That is legitimate confidence. That may be offensive to you for whatever reason I don't know. If you have OU I don't see what your wrangling with me about. I write a lot to be understood. I avoid ambiguity, as then you just think worse. At this point I can't see the original point or my response so I don't remember the question. Probably a, 'When did you stop beating that person' kind of question. lol Again, I don't get your rejection of my points if you say you have OU. Do you understand how it works? Or do you just have something you can't explain. Sounds like the latter. This is why I am showing the principles of free energy.
That's funny about what you say about the bench. I have been showing on the bench and in real products what he implied for 15 years now. So if that was wrong, then how do you account for free energy gains then? Why is it that I have to be the only one defending OU and the processes on these OU forums? Whenever I ask people the basis for why they believe in OU then I get zero response. Do you not know why or is it just a hope like G had?
How much? Just a little diode PM! A flyback diode with a load in series, is what I said if you cared to read. In Lewin's case he just had the voltmeter loop as he was not willing to go any further. He was just hinting at the obvious implications.

Well then, "you are the man, and wisdom will die with you!" By all means instruct us ignorant folks. Since you have such a distain for my many words, it reveals itself to everyone that you don't bother to read what I actually say. I did say I can meter everything, and that this does in fact translate to software, that does predict this phenomena. And that is the end of the story once you learn that. If the software could not properly predict the effect in parts then they would have a hard time clamping out these pesty gains that destroy semiconductors and pit DC contacts. hmmm maybe you will read next time. lol That's the problem with these forums, they are so impersonal. If we were meeting in the real world then we would all be laughing and having a good time.
Again, I was talking about taking specific power readings and realizing that there is no power at such places.
Nice try!

Why thank you Rick!  Hmmm, I see that you are paying considerable attention here which supports my decision to delete my technology on this forum.
Yada, yada, yada!  You're really good at regurgitating stuff!  The answer to my question is black or white, yes or no.  But answering a simple yes or no is beneath your intelligence quotient as you must maintain the facade of an all knowing one.  So, I have to take your answer as a yes---please correct me if I'm wrong. 
Again more yada, yada!  Professor Lewin and his KVL video, he got it wrong dude!  This is easily proven on the bench with standard, oh wait...... I didn't have a/your negative resistance loop!  How much are they?  BTW, I don't have any problems measuring the energy levels of pulses or any complex waveforms.  You keep referencing "meters" all the time regarding measurements.  I hope you have had the privilege of using the latest scopes that are on the market these days.  No problem taking these "difficult" measurements in fact, I bet they would even handle your negative resistance batteries, motors, loops and such.
I've had this paper for some time.  Have you actually tried the ENC yourself?
Still waiting for that KVL circuit.
Pm
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
Rick
My thoughts on these things don't come to me as quickly [well they come quickly just not
transferable to print.
I will respond in the next few days.

it is a most passionate topic for me too ,and something seems off ?
as here we have not one definite example of reproducible OU that would be considered a true anomaly.
Here we feel if there is a problem looping or scaling to large output , there is something wrong.

respectfully
Chet K 
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Now this is a twist I didn't expect. Interesting stories. I trust you aren't pulling a Tinsel on me here in asking.
Yes, I have had many runaways of all different sizes. This is why I have the first rule of the shop as safety first. Even the second rule is just that in a different way.

This is why you have to know what you are doing and take the steps to put proper controls on it. This can happen when you jump too quickly instead of taking small steps. Usually because you are rushed to get something done. But in one case I created a reaction that turned a power supply up from 6V to 22V and my system produced a very unique ball of fire that caused all sorts of problems. This was a small example that I did not expect. I know what you are talking about and that gets into weapons systems so you don't want to go there. I have several criteria for what I'll work with and produce. It can't be unstable like that. I have known many an old researcher who has spent years working on some system but it just doesn't meet the criteria. At some point we need to think a head if the system is going to be practical. I think in many cases, people have stumbled onto something that didn't make sense conventionally. So they run with that, maybe even after they lost it and couldn't repeat it, because they don't have anything else. How many people here have that experience? In fact many of my customers are engineers who have had that very experience in their line of work. So once they retire or get close, they start exploring such things. Whether small or big catastrophic events, that is how most of us got started. The key is learning the science, the principles of free energy, and grow up from all the guessing and rambling on as if it isn't possible, etc.

I hesitate to say, but Judy Wood has detailed this sort of thing (dustification) about 9/11. We all saw, in video mind you, the 700' massive steel frame start to fall over and then just dustify. We didn't expect to see that so we never realized what we saw until we go back and look again to our amazement. This was the biggest demonstration of these processes. 

Rick,

Two short stories involving special inventors in the search for OU who I was privileged to converse and interact with in past years. 

The first was Bill Wampler who has since passed on from what I understand.  I made contact with Bill through relatives which is another story in itself but not important.  What is important however, is that Bill had made millions developing and producing desalination equipment that he sold and installed throughout the world.  With the profits, he put together a team of engineers devoted to researching and creating FE devices.  When I first met him, his company was manufacturing a 10-12kw black box that he gave away to third world countries in regions that otherwise had no source of power.  He had no intent of entering any markets to sell these units and avoided any government intervention like the plague.  This was a true FE device that I sorely wanted to become involved with but that wasn't to be.  In our conversation, I quizzed him regarding the technology which was solid state and only required a starting battery much like an ICE.  Of course he gave me no details but I still remember several statements he made like "the energy is all around us" and "the problem is, you must first learn how to collect it, and then you must learn how to control it".  He had a very serious emphasis on the control factor.

The second is Paul Landers.  Paul had found me on some forum somewhere and commissioned me to design and  build some specialized high speed, high power switching circuits.  These circuits were used to build a solid state version of a mechanical device he and a friend had developed based on Paul's theories.  I was to do this free gratis so to help convince me to get involved, Paul described their work and sent pix of their setup in a running state.  One forum member here has a copy of these pix but basically, the machine was a counter-rotating magnetic field arrangement that while running had turned the framework made of wood and metal to plasma.  That's right, solid objects turned to plasma. 

Now, there was a common denominator to these stories and it is the point of this post.  Both of these parties experienced runaway conditions in their development stages.  Bill stated that their experience scarred the living daylights out of all present and they vacated the facility and hoped for the best.  Paul and his associate experienced the same runaway in his garage lab of which the plasma pix were evidence.  They too vacated the premises while hoping for the best.  In both cases all power had been removed from the devices during their runaway condition and yet they continued to gain in energy until reaching a peak before subsiding.

My point is, both of these entities were extracting energy from the surrounding aether and both experienced runaway conditions.  These are real world stories and true.

Have you ever experienced any such event?

Pm         
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
Partzman.  the action of the Heavyside component is one of the revelations in Rick's videos.  Most people who used the Bedini systems (say the ssg) were only charging one other battery.  However the device is capable of charging several batteries in series and parallel because of the Heavyside component.  This is a phenomenon I noticed probably 7 years ago and did not understand it. (With my own builds - not ssg)
So Rick did me personally a big favour by revealing that secret (amongst many others).

Here is the video which reveals the secrets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-Q77slGAw


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Not sure if I showed the plasma tube demo in a video as I do at my meetings. But I do show the plates outputting additional energy without changing the tube, and without affecting each of a multistack arrangement. Just like in batteries. I could make over 60 plates. And there is a secret multiplier beyond that in relation to capacitors that I'll bring out in the next week or so on the new website. The key thing to consider is that the input is not affected by collecting this. The wire or trace in a circuit is like your sail in a poynting horizontal position with the Heaviside wind. Only a little resistance/energy. When the sail is up then it collects. But electrically we don't have resistance affecting the input. So you can add as many sails on the ocean as desired... I did an experiment with my little monopole years ago where I got over 200 times the output from 48V or 2000AH batteries after charging them with my little monopole kit at 2A 12V input. This was the biggest output with the basic SSG circuit and no advanced third stage process. The motor ran the same with a 12V 12AH charging battery before that. The input stays the same regardless of the amount of sales. This is Tesla's one wire system people. There are many many applications. That's why I said, understand the principles of free energy and you can pick your flavor with parts in front of you. I figured this out in the first 6 months of this and ran 10 golf-cart batteries off of small systems. I didn't know it was Heaviside back then (he was a good guy even though he truncated Maxwell). Now I do this with RF without batteries and the sky is not the limit...

Partzman.  the action of the Heavyside component is one of the revelations in Rick's videos.  Most people who used the Bedini systems (say the ssg) were only charging one other battery.  However the device is capable of charging several batteries in series and parallel because of the Heavyside component.  This is a phenomenon I noticed probably 7 years ago and did not understand it. (With my own builds - not ssg)
So Rick did me personally a big favour by revealing that secret (amongst many others).

Here is the video which reveals the secrets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-Q77slGAw
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:42:20 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-10-20, 22:49:28